Welcome to Dozensonline. We hope you enjoy your visit.You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, and sending personal messages. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. (You will be asked to confirm your email address before we sign you on.)Join our community!If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

You can introduce yourself here, if you so wish, and talk a little bit about who you are, how you came by this site, what your interest and background in number bases and measuring systems is, and so forth.
Members should try to make newcomers feel welcome. So yep, no flaming, no SPAM, no trolling, and no banned materials.

This is a math forum as it relates to duodecimal numeration. We discuss a lot of things here and I am awed by the intellect of our members. I am getting tired of the enmity though. Let's try to be civil, shall we? Mathematics is not a game of strategy, it is not a cut throat enterprise. It ought to be an enterprise of wonder and awe.

This is an overall plea for civility in our discussions. We are not enemies but fellow travelers.

All y'all who agree say: "YAY" herein. (If you don't agree, it's not like we're going to have a banfest. Just want to get a witness).

Yeah, looking back at many of my recent posts objectively, they do seem pretty unreasonable. That said, I wish Wendy would do a better job explaining herself and her ideas, and do it more up front and unprompted, and in the subforum already dedicated to her completely, or others that are related, rather than everywhere at once. If people are interested in any of Wendy's subjects, go to the right place to talk about it (or go to teamikaria), and don't derail threads off into a tangent all the time. Take it to another thread in the right subforum.

This is a forum primarily about dozenal, not twelfty. Newcomers should know that they aren't obligated to learn all about alternating arithmetic, or about polytopes, or about Old English, to be here. Wendy is not an authority here, certainly not an authority on all subjects. We're all entitled to our opinions, including Wendy, but no one, especially Wendy, has the right to assert their opinions are above everybody else's.

I will tell you though, if I never hear that canard about "drinking chocolate", or anything about vitamin D deficiencies, or any snide comments about "Esperanto", or any ridiculous assertions about the nature of the English language, ever again, it will be too soon. Enough is enough.

I don't want to see Wendy banned. Lol, I value her for reliably pointing the _opposite_ to the best way. (In my opinion, of course.) But she needs to be a good citizen here.

We've been here before and though things quietened down for a while, touches of 'attack mode' have flared up (or should I say 'flamed'?) again. It is really rather like being back in front of a classroom where every now and again belligerence bursts out.

So, to treat the problem as one used to, let us agree to give up all forms of sniping, flaming and personal abuse, sneering and patronising remarks about other members and their work or posts and what may be considered general bad manners and schoolroom and playground behaviour. We are all adults here, aren't we? Well then, let's not behave like children.Don't take umbrage at being reprimanded, don't assume you are the one person being blamed, and don't go off and sulk.

Let me suggest this: If I see something that I feel is objectionable, in the future, rather than try to counter it on the spot, I will quote it, and post the quote in this thread, with at most a word or two to indicate the nature of the objection. "Off topic tangent". "Evident bigotry". "Personal attack". "Pretense of authority." "Button-pushing". That sort of thing. No followup beyond that, unless there is repetition. Let anyone else do the same. Others here can then comment on whether they think the accusation is warranted or unjustified. But the parties involved cannot engage in debate here. That way the aggrieved party can feel their grievance was at least aired in some fashion, and doesn't just fester. Deal?

Meanwhile, for the most part, I will be ignoring Wendy's posts, and not commenting on them, unless I actually see something helpful in them. I expect if she keeps simply asserting her ideas in my threads, there will be a lot of "Off Topic", and "Pretense of authority" complaints here.

"Mystique mongering" will no doubt be a big complaint of mine. This requires some definition. This is either the passing mention of a concept, or an author, or an authority, generally unknown or obscure, while providing little to no context or explanation or definition, no link or reference someone could look up, often though not necessarily quite off topic, but apparently contriving to make the speaker look superior or to have superior knowledge. It could also be a passing reference to some grand accomplishment one claims to have in their background. Often framed to imply that the listener should already know about this, else they are uneducated, and therefore the speaker should not be bothered with providing context or evidence of the supposed accomplishment.

I provide this as a definition. As with any future complaint, anyone can post such here, but it will be up to each bystander to judge whether the complaint has merit.

---

It is pointless for either the accuser or the accused to defend their position here, so I won't be doing so, because that gets us nowhere. It should be up to uninvolved bystanders to volunteer their opinions in defense of either party. If it turns out everyone ignores this thread and doesn't get involved, there's not much point arguing anyway.

Let me suggest this: If I see something that I feel is objectionable, in the future, rather than try to counter it on the spot, I will quote it, and post the quote in this thread, with at most a word or two to indicate the nature of the objection. "Off topic tangent". "Evident bigotry". "Personal attack". "Pretense of authority." "Button-pushing". That sort of thing.

This all seems to me to be totally unnecessary.Why not just give it a rest?

You get things like this. Really, some of the things that Kode are peddling as 'insults' are pretty much the fare of the day down here.

"Drinking Choclate" is a real thing, you can buy it in tins, and make it like instant coffee. He sets it in quotes, as if he had never heard of it. Adds weight, i suppose.

The comments about 'vitiman D' is that the system is so inwardly looking that it becomes apparent that no external input is taken. I use it every bit as much on mathematicians.

Esperanto here is not the language, but about a system that is so contrived that it is in danger of over-collapse. It's like saying 'it's all greek to me'. I've invented systems that have this problem, but sometimes the problem is in the data and not the system. You have to live with some of it. [Point in case: Kodegadulo gives a construction of his name. Every syllable gives a rather heavy meaning construct].

Sigh, it must be hard to forget the insults. In Pinbaker's latest thread on authorities, my first post there was directly resonded with a personal attack, nothing on topic mind you, but 'don't listen to her, etc'. I commented on it twice, Pinbacker once.

Alrighty... though, as anyone who's ever been in the academic world should know, it's perfectly possible to insult people in a totally civil way.

QUOTE (icarus)

Mathematics is not a game of strategy, it is not a cut throat enterprise.

It isn't?! Spoilsport!

But seriously:

QUOTE (icarus)

It ought to be an enterprise of wonder and awe.

I most definitely agree here. For the same reason, however, I think the wonder and awe are best wrought out not by incessant word-exchanges and their attendant civility codes, but by showing one's work and feeding people proofs of pudding ('Always avoid alliteration'.)

That's one reason why I've liked your visuals (such as the multicoloured base-trait tables) more than anything else, and why I've lately been busier fooling around with SVG images and my DeviantArt gallery than posting here.

Speaking of which, I suggest, when the heat of argument starts to build up, maybe some of us should attend to the preparation of the next issue of the Dozenal Bulletin.

@Pinbacker. No, I really have not really made any threads on the subject. Suppose it was too painful.

Button pushing. Cf:

QUOTE (Kodegadulo @ Mar 16 2016, 03:57 AM)

This is the only post I will make in this thread, so as to give Wendy a chance to build it up as best she can, unmolested. But see my commentary at The Dd System - Critiques.

QUOTE

A lot of it was cooked up in the seventies and eighties, and a lot of texts were read, and some of the notation was copied. But once the conversion to twelfty was done, and the deep eploration of class-two systems began, there really wasn't need to push base 12 or 18 or base 22.

I agree with Shaun, let's give it a rest. Takes (at least) two to tango. Not naming names. Treisaran I completely understand you about civil conflicts, but at least if we are civil, things don't tend to blossom into a dust up.

Speaking of which, I suggest, when the heat of argument starts to build up, maybe some of us should attend to the preparation of the next issue of the Dozenal Bulletin.

To be blunt, at the moment I am completely burnt out about the idea. Publishing an issue about "metrologies" in this context seems to me a complete minefield. I don't much relish having articles about my own contributions, which people here are actually using, trashed in advance as "Esperanto" or "ready for collapse". I should cite that as "presumption of authority". I don't even kown if Don is available to write a President's Message. So it seems like it would be a thin issue on the ground.

Shaun the most constructive thing I (and Oschkar, if he persists in it) am working on at the moment, even if I never mentioned Wendy, is sure to be viewed as a wholesale rejection of most of her ideas. How do I square this circle?

Shaun the most constructive thing I (and Oschkar, if he persists in it) am working on at the moment, even if I never mentioned Wendy, is sure to be viewed as a wholesale rejection of most of her ideas. How do I square this circle?

You do your thing and let her do hers. Put all your energies into your creations.

Hello one and all it is the Christmas/festivus/wintersolstice/whatever season and in the spirit of the festivus spry, let us consider courtesy and laying down our differences. Let us talk mathematics.

I am trying to ascertain, should I buy the database, would we lose our posts? Because it is an exit method, not an archive one. But should happen next week.

Please do not bait and if baited, please let it slide.

The last iteration seems to stem from the following.

Members X and Y have wanted to discuss topics they believe would set a prominent member Z off, for Z's having invested a lot of time into those topics and having come to personal conclusions that, in Z's mind, have settled debate and arrived at a sort of best practice. However the topic T that X and Y considers, may go in an alternate direction for X and Y do not think like Z. Indeed once T went up, Z jumped in and well, this is Z's domain and Z considers Z-self an authority and discussion verboten unless it takes in everything Z ever came in contact with and the resultant conclusions are synonymous to Z's own conclusions.

Member Z posts a topic V down X's alley, calling it Brand X. Well that is calling out X, more or less. So we changed that and the hurt that Z and X have felt since 2013 has filled V with 5 pages of back and forth squabbling that has inducted a third member W into the fray. Z is insisting that algorithms that chunk a ton of data necessarily soundly resolve a topic such that no one might dare question Z's logic, but we all know GIGO is possible. Z would say that Admin C likewise has dumped C's share of data, but the difference between Z-data and C-data is that C does NOT consider C-data sacred and unquestionable, in fact, plenty of questions have arisen regarding C's data. But we are not to quibble with Z-data, lest we are read to be attacking Z Z-self.

Suppose things simmer down. Well some other topic, say, Topic Schwa comes up, and it is reminiscent of some other topic (say V or T). Well Z might remember the time when Z was hurt by something X said, or threatened by some remark Y made that seemed to be in cahoots with X's line of thought. Well we will engage in a brawl between X and Z for Z having re-opened the wounds.

It is for this that I support letting Z go, for Z's inability to allow other people to discuss things, and for the demonstrable umbrage Members X, Y, and at least one other have suggested in not wanting to post a topic for their lack of desire to rouse Z's attention. It is true that X ought to have more restraint, but to me the problem seems to be Z, and were it my decision alone, Z would not be allowed to return.

What it comes down to is emotion. If we can just forgive and maybe walk away from these topics for a little while, come back at it when we have something more than being hurt about the last melee, we might talk peaceably. But we have demonstrated over the past several years this is not possible.

So come 1 January what shall we do?

Because the situation must be brought to a final conclusion.

Feel free to discuss in this thread. This is a lightning-rod thread. Please refrain from infecting other threads with he-said she-said. I really dislike this matter and more than one of us wants it to end.

Hello one and all it is the Christmas/festivus/wintersolstice/whatever season and in the spirit of the festivus spry, let us consider courtesy and laying down our differences. Let us talk mathematics....What it comes down to is emotion. If we can just forgive and maybe walk away from these topics for a little while, come back at it when we have something more than being hurt about the last melee, we might talk peaceably. But we have demonstrated over the past several years this is not possible.

But we have demonstrated over the past several years this is not possible.

We have tried calling a truce; we have banned, reprimanded, deleted, closed, discussed, agreed, - in addition to which we have set up rules of behaviour (which I still consider would not be necessary if members would simply behave pleasantly to each other).All, it seems, to no avail.

Peace and Goodwill to all men is now the theme for the festive season. Might we make it the theme for the whole of next year and beyond?